> I was musing over the use of SWMA in Col. 2:17 (which is worth some discussion
> itself, but that is not what my question is about) when I decided to read
> Colossians chapter 2 in P46 using Comfort/Barrett.
>
> I noticed a small discrepancy in Col. 2:17b
>
> NA27 (corrected, 2000 ed.) reads:
>
> TO DE SWMA TOU CRISTOU
>
> but P46 according to the Comfort/Barrett transcription reads:
>
> TO DE SWMA CRU
>
> Now the issue here is not CRU which is a Nomina Sacra, the issue is the
> missing TOU.
>
> B. & K. Aland list P46 as a "consistently cited witness of the first order"
> for Colossians. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what the Alands mean by a
> "consistently cited witness of the first order." I was assuming that it meant
> they would always cite the readings of P46 when the differed from the text of
> NA27. If that isn't what they mean then I am clueless (again).
>
> Anyway, there is no indication in NA27 (corrected, 2000 ed.) that TOU is
> missing in P46. So, what is the story here? Did Comfort/Barrett goof or is
> this an oversight in NA27 or is it just a misunderstanding on my part of what
> the Aland's mean by "a consistently cited witness of the first order?"
>

I took a look at B. & K. Aland' s Text of the NT (2nd ed.) again and read
their explanation of a "consistently cited witness" which in this book they
call a "constantly cited witness." It appears that my assumption about this
was correct.

I also took a look at Hodges & Farstad for Col 2:17b and they show the
Majority reading agreeing with P46 in that both omit the TOU. So it would
appear that Comfort/Barrett are correct.

So what do you folks make of this? Is this an error in the NA27 (corrected,
2000 ed.) or am I still overlooking some little obvious fact that everyone
else knows.

One idea that past through my mind was that nomina sacra in the papyri might
omit the article for the sake of saving space. What about this?